A defective charge and interference by a private prosecutor in the cross-examination of witnesses can prejudice the accused and result in a miscarriage of justice.

( 1 ) I agree with my learned brothers conclusions and would like to express the reasons in a few words of my own.

( 2 ) ON behalf of accused 1, 3 and 12 the learned counsel, Sri Krishna Reddi, placed in the forefront of his arguments the contention that they have been prejudiced in their defence at the trial. He did not press for a determination of the other points raised in the appeals, if we proposed to give effect to the contention and order a retrial. As comments by us on the evidence would have embarrassed a fair retrial, we have examined the facts for the limited purpose of determining whether a retrial is necessary.

( 3 ) THE first point taken was that the charge did not give the accused proper notice of the offence they had to meet. This problem has to be solved bearing in mind the principles explained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in W. Slaney v. State of M. P. (S) A. I. R. 1956 S. C. 116 and the provisions of Section 537 Criminal Procedure Code. The relevant portion of Section 537 reads thus:- "subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered under Chapter XXVII or on appeal or revision on account. . . . . . ** * * * (b) of any error omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, or * * * * * unless such error, omission, irregularity or misdirection has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. Explanation:--In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceedings under this Code has occasioned a failure of justice, the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in tide proceedings. " Here neither the prosecution nor the defence objected to the charge in the court below. But as observed in (S) A. I. R. 1956 S. C. 116 at Page 128: "in adjudging the question of prejudice the fact that the absence of a charge, or a substantial mistake in it, is a serious lacuna will naturally operate to the benefit of the accused and if there is any reasonable and substantial doubt about whether he was, or was reasonably likely to have been, misled in the circumstances of any particular case, he is as much entitled to the benefit of it here as elsewhere;"

( 4 ) IN the present case, the charges "read over and explained" to all the 20 accused were more or less in identical terms and have been reproduced in the judgment by my learned brother, They were just the charges framed by the Magistrate at the preliminary inquiry. Although they were ex facie extremely defective, as pointed out by my learned brother, there was no attempt by the trial Judge to amend them and frame proper charges as was his duty under Section 226, Criminal Procedure Code. Obviously, they were adopted by him at the trial without any scrutiny. In the circumstances, I have no doubt that there was no further explanation of them to the accused beyond mechanically translating them.

( 5 ) WITH regard to the offence of murder, every one of the 20 accused was told in the charge concerned that he along with the other accused "with the common object of killing Rami Reddi dragged him and inflicted multiple injuries on his body with axes, sticks and knives as a result he died on the spot" and Section 302 Indian Penal Code was mentioned, There was no indication of vicarious liability either by mentioning that certain of them had caused fatal injuries or by quoting Section 84 or 149, Indian Penal Code. For all that each accused knew, the separate blows he dealt were alleged in the charge to he the fatal ones, because that is implied by Section 221 (5), Criminal Procedure Code, But the fact was that although the deceased had 22 items of injuries, only 3 on the head were grievous and the remaining 10 were simple i. e. , did not even endanger life. It was meaningless, if not absurd, to line up 20 persons and tell every one of them that he had caused by his bl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document